DOCSLIB.ORG

The Environmental Optimism of Elinor Ostrom Edited By: Megan E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Environmental Optimism of Elinor Ostrom Edited By: Megan E The Environmental Optimism of Elinor Ostrom Edited by: Megan E. Jenkins, Randy T Simmons, and Camille H. Wardle The Environmental Optimism of Elinor Ostrom Edited by: Megan E. Jenkins, Randy T Simmons, and Camille H. Wardle Copyright © 2020 the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University All rights reserved Paperback ISBN 978-1-7348561-0-1 eISBN 978-1-7348561-1-8 Cover design and typesetting by Brooke Jacques The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University 3525 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322 www. thecgo.org “As an institutionalist studying empirical phenomena, I presume that individuals try to solve problems as effectively as they can. It is my responsibility as a scientist to ascertain what problem individuals are trying to solve and what factors help or hinder them in these efforts.” –Elinor Ostrom, 2009 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Contents Introduction ................................................................................... vii Megan E. Jenkins and Randy T Simmons Chapter 1 Resource Governance in the American West: Institutions, Information, and Incentives ............................................ 1 Peter J. Hill and Shawn Regan Chapter 2 Self-Governance, Polycentricity, and Environmental Policy................... 31 Jordan K. Lofthouse Chapter 3 Pacific Salmon Fisheries Management: An (Unusual) Example of Polycentric Governance Involving Indigenous Participation at Multiple Scales .......................... 61 Shane Day Chapter 4 Population Growth and the Governance of Complex Institutions: People Are More Than Mouths to Feed ............... 91 Pierre Desrochers and Joanna Szurmak Chapter 5 Contracting and the Commons: Linking the Insights of Gary Libecap and Elinor Ostrom ....................... 149 Eric C. Edwards and Bryan Leonard Chapter 6 The Environmental Benefits of Long-Distance Trade: Insights from the History of By-Product Development .......................... 173 Pierre Desrochers and Joanna Szurmak Contributors ................................................................................... 211 Endnotes ....................................................................................... 217 Introduction Megan E. Jenkins and Randy T Simmons TAH STATE UNIVERSITY HAS HAD a long-term involvement in wa- Uter resources management in the Dominican Republic. A few years ago one of us (Randy Simmons) visited the Dominican Re- public’s National Institute for Water Resources. Behind a counter on the main floor of their offices, an entire wall was taken up by a map of the country, showing its nearly five thousand kilometers of irrigation canals and fourteen major dams. When asked how this system was managed, one of the water managers answered with a question: “Have you ever heard of Elinor Ostrom?” They were implementing her framework as they transferred manage- ment authority from the central government to local water-user associations. The Dominican experiment in irrigation management illus- trates a key point in the Ostromian approach, because the man- agement system is neither purely public nor purely private. It is polycentric—that is, there are overlapping jurisdictions with mul- tiple decision-making centers.1 As Elinor Ostrom said in her Nobel prize lecture, “The humans we study have complex motivational structures and establish diverse private-for-profit, governmental, and community institutional arrangements that operate at mul- tiple scales to generate productive and innovative as well as de- structive and perverse outcomes.”2 Social scientists use the term social dilemma to label situations in which there is conflict between individual and collective interests. Historically, there have been two basic ways of looking at such situations: a pessimistic point of view and an optimistic point of view. The pessimistic view—that individuals are helplessly trapped—was dominant in the past, and often still seems so. Ostrom’s approach is so much more op- timistic than this. The most influential statement of pessimism about social di- lemmas was Garrett Hardin’s 1968 article, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Hardin claimed, “The inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. Ruin is the destination to- ward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”3 Many reacted to Hardin by propos- ing either government management or privatization of commons and commons-like resources. Ostrom and her colleagues helped researchers understand that there is a broad array of potential management schemes for resources held in common; the choice is not limited to purely public or purely private solutions. As Ostrom explained in her Nobel lecture, “What have we learned? We now know that the earlier theories of rational, but helpless, individuals who are trapped in social dilemmas are not supported by a large number of studies using diverse methods.”4 Toward the end of her lecture, Ostrom summarized the key policy implications of her work: “The most important lesson for pub- lic policy analysis derived from the intellectual journey I have outlined here is that humans have a more complex motivational structure and more capability to solve social dilemmas than posit- ed in earlier rational-choice theory.”5 The essays in this volume are in the Ostromian tradition of exploring and attempting to understand complex institutional VIII | T HE E NVIRONMENTAL O PTIMI S M OF E LINOR O S TROM forms. Each chapter explores a particular issue in environmen- tal policy by carefully analyzing how institutions impact the in- centive to “help or hinder the innovativeness, learning, adapting, trustworthiness, levels of cooperation of participants, and the achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable out- comes at multiple scales.”6 The diversity of topics studied in this volume serves as a trib- ute to the wide applicability of the foundational research Elinor Ostrom conducted. The volume begins with an examination of resource governance in the American West, looking at how top- down institutions developed to govern a complex and demand- ing landscape that new settlers were unaccustomed to. It then explores another example from the western United States: that of the largely successful polycentric management of the greater sage-grouse. The third chapter explores the role of American and Canadian indigenous groups in governing Pacific salmon fisher- ies. Chapter 4 moves on to an examination of Garrett Hardin’s classic, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and of Ostrom’s response to Hardin’s claim that unchecked human population growth is a recipe for tragedy. The fifth chapter bridges the gap between the work of natural resources scholar and University of California Santa Barbara professor Gary Libecap on property rights and Os- trom’s work on polycentric governance. And the sixth and final chapter explores the importance of long-distance trade in devel- oping markets for industrial by-products, and thus in cleaning up the commons. Although the chapters included here span diverse areas of study, several common themes emerge. The first is Elinor Os- trom’s core finding that one-size-fits-all solutions cannot ade- quately address complex local conditions. Environmental issues tend to be complex, and solving them requires robust local knowl- edge and cooperation among on-the-ground actors. The chapters in this volume explore this theme by examining how settlers in Introduction | IX the American West decided to allocate water and grazing rights as well as how indigenous groups work with national and inter- national organizations to effectively manage salmon in the Pacific. Another common theme is that human ingenuity and creativi- ty are limitless. Garrett Hardin predicted that population growth would inevitably result in environmental catastrophe as human beings outstripped the earth’s ability to keep them alive. But, as the authors of this volume point out, population growth has led to exponential increases in wealth, an increasing ability to produce greater amounts of food, and the development of life-saving and life-improving technologies. The case studies explored through- out this volume, from managing sage-grouse to developing mar- kets that turn waste products into valuable by-products, demon- strate humans’ limitless ability to work together to find creative solutions to environmental problems. If we have learned anything about how to get better environ- mental outcomes, it is that institutions truly matter. The chapters here all shed light on how institutional design impacts whether local actors will cooperate to find mutually beneficial outcomes, or whether they will resort to conflict to get their desired outcome at the expense of someone else. Property rights, the enforcement of contracts, and cultural factors like trust all play an important role, and each of these institutions is explored in this volume. Taken together, the work in this volume suggests that Elinor Ostrom was right—we don’t have to choose between purely pri- vate or purely public responses to environmental problems. In fact, many problems will be best addressed by a solution that combines the best of both types of responses by allowing for poly- centric governance at multiple levels. Environmental issues will continue to be complex and ever-changing, and may only increase in scale. Addressing these issues will require harnessing the lim- itless ingenuity of humankind to find innovative solutions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Indian Property Rights
    Property rights, selective enforcement, and the destruction of wealth on Indian lands Ilia Murtazashvili* University of Pittsburgh Abstract This paper reconceptualizes the nature of property institutions in the United States. Conventional economic analysis suggests that the U.S. established private property rights protection as a public good by the end of the nineteenth century. The experience of Indians suggests otherwise. During the mid-nineteenth century, the economic fortunes of settlers on public lands owned by the United States government and Indians diverged. Settlers secured legal property rights and self-governance, while members of Indian nations were forced into an inequitable property system in which the federal government established an institutionalized system to discriminate against reservation Indians. The property system is most appropriately described as a selective enforcement regime in which some groups enjoy credible and effective property rights at the expense of others who confront a predatory state and institutionalized property insecurity. The persistence of the selective enforcement regime explains the persistence of poverty among reservation Indians. * Email: [email protected]. Paper prepared for the Searle Workshop on “Indigenous Capital, Growth, and Property Rights: The Legacy of Colonialism,” Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Many thanks to Terry Anderson and Nick Parker for organizing the workshop. 1 2 Introduction The United States is often used as an example to illustrate the beneficial consequences of private property rights for economic growth and development. Sokoloff and Engerman (2000) use differences in land policy to explain the reversal of economic fortunes of the U.S. and Spanish America, which started with a similar per capita GDP around 1800 but diverged substantially by the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Commons Forum
    Summer 2011 No. 11 ince the end of the 13th IASC Global Conference conference was a unique demonstration of that in Hyderabad, the Executive Council has balance since it was the first meeting in our history Sapproved one global conference and two that was sponsored by a practitioner organization. meetings. The next Global Conference will be at the foot of Mount Fuji in Kitafuji, Japan, in the summer This number of the Digest showcases some of the of 2013; in addition, the Asian Regional Meeting will highlights of the Hyderabad meeting: excerpts from be held Ulan Bator, Mongolia, in June 2012, and our the speech of Shri Jairam Ramesh, Minister of the 1st Thematic Meeting on “knowledge commons” is Environment and Forests in India; the final conference scheduled for September 2012 in Louvain-La-Nouve, report from the Foundation for Ecological Security Belgium. Our European meeting (“Shared Resources (FES) presented by Jagdeesh Rao Puppala, and a in a Rapidly Changing World”) will be held in Plovdiv, thoughtful report on the Hyderabad meeting from Bulgaria, this coming September. Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the English Open Spaces Society. This special edition of The Commons Digest focuses on our extremely successful meeting in Hyderabad This issue includes, as always, the valuable updates this past January. The first article is the splendid to the Digital Library of the Commons (DLC) at Indiana presidential address given by Dr. Ruth Meinzen-Dick, University, compiled by Emily Castle, Director of the in which she highlighted recent milestones in the DLC. history and work of IASC. The first milestone was Elinor Ostrom’s 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for Finally, please read the invitation to join IASC written her work on the commons; Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death of the Firm
    Article The Death of the Firm June Carbone† & Nancy Levit†† INTRODUCTION A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are ex- tended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.1 In the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lob- by—and more generally in corporate and employment law—the firm as entity is disappearing as a unit of legal analysis. We use the term “firm” in this Article in the sense that Ronald Coase did to describe a form of business organization that or- ders the production of goods and services through use of a sys- tem internal to the enterprise rather than through the use of independent contractors.2 The idea of an “entity” in this sense † Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology, University of Minneso- ta Law School. †† Curators’ and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law, University of Mis- souri – Kansas City School of Law. We thank William K. Black, Margaret F. Brinig, Naomi Cahn, Paul Callister, Mary Ann Case, Lynne Dallas, Robert Downs, Max Eichner, Martha Fineman, Barb Glesner Fines, Claire Hill, Brett McDonnell, Amy Monahan, Charles O’Kelley, Hari Osofsky, Irma Russell, Dan Schwarcz, Lynn Stout, and Erik P.M. Vermeulen for their helpful comments on drafts of this Article and Tracy Shoberg and Shiveta Vaid for their research support.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Robert Gibbons and John Roberts
    Introduction Robert Gibbons and John Roberts Organizational economics involves the use of economic logic and methods to understand the existence, nature, design, and performance of organizations, especially managed ones. As this handbook documents, economists working on organizational issues have now generated a large volume of exciting research, both theoretical and empirical. However, organizational economics is not yet a fully recognized field in economics—for example, it has no JournalofEconomic Literature classification number, and few doctoral programs offer courses in it. The intent of this handbook is to make the existing research in organizational economics more accessible to economists and thereby to promote further research and teaching in the field. The Origins of Organizational Economics As Kenneth Arrow (1974: 33) put it, “organizations are a means of achieving the benefits of collective action in situations where the price system fails,” thus including not only business firms but also consortia, unions, legislatures, agencies, schools, churches, social movements, and beyond. All organizations, Arrow (1974: 26) argued, share “the need for collective action and the allocation of resources through nonmarket methods,” suggesting a range of possible structures and processes for decisionmaking in organizations, including dictatorship, coalitions, committees, and much more. Within Arrow’s broad view of the possible purposes and designs of organizations, many distinguished economists can be seen as having addressed organizational issues
    [Show full text]
  • Processing Information, Biases, and Beliefs for Improved Management of Natural Resources and Environment
    Earth’s Future REVIEW From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, 10.1002/2016EF000487 and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments Pierre D. Glynn1 ,AlexeyA.Voinov2,CarlD.Shapiro1, and Paul A. White3 Key Points: • Biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values 1Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth permeate the progression from 3 sensory inputs to data to knowledge Observation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, GNS Science (Institute of Geological and Nuclear to decisions Sciences), Wairakei Research Centre, Taupo, New Zealand • An adaptive framework is presented for the science and policy governance of complex systems Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, • The framework is discussed in the Abstract context of different types of systems and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values or issues of interest in the natural (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, sciences acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be rec- ognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they Supporting Information: need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Tak- • Supporting Information S1 ing BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and Corresponding author: framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Property Right Paradigm Armen A. Alchian; Harold Demsetz The
    The Property Right Paradigm Armen A. Alchian; Harold Demsetz The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 33, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History. (Mar., 1973), pp. 16-27. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507%28197303%2933%3A1%3C16%3ATPRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A The Journal of Economic History is currently published by Economic History Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/eha.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Thu Jun 7 08:00:21 2007 The Property Right Paradigm INTRODUCTION CONOMICS textbooks invariably describe the important eco- E nomic choices that all societies must make by the following three questions: What goods are to be produced? How are these goods to be produced? Who is to get what is produced? This way of stating social choice problems is misleading.
    [Show full text]
  • W01-25FINAL.Pdf
    W01-25 10/17/01 ARTIFACTS, FACILITIES, AND CONTENT: INFORMATION AS A COMMON-POOL RESOURCE by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis Indiana University © 2001 by authors Paper to be presented at the “Conference on the Public Domain,” Duke Law School, Durham, North Carolina, November 9-11, 2001 We would like to thank Gerry Bernbom, Vincent Ostrom, Tobias Klaus, Harini Nagendra, Robert Najlis, and Enrico Schaar for their helpful and insightful comments. We are eternally grateful to Patty Zielinski for her expert technological, editorial assistance as well as her perseverance and patience. We also graciously thank the Ford Foundation for its support. WORKSHOP IN POLITICAL THEORY AND POLICY ANALYSIS Indiana University, 513 North Park Bloomington, Indiana 47408-3895 USA Phone: 812-855-0441 • Fax: 812-3150 Email: [email protected] • http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop I. INTRODUCTION We are in the midst of an information arms race with multiple sides battling for larger shares of the global knowledge pool. The records of scholarly communication, the foundations of an informed, democratic society, are at risk. Recent legal literature heightens our awareness of “the enclosure of the intellectual public domain” through new patent and copyright laws.1 There are a number of issues concerning the conflicts and contradictions between new laws and new technologies.2 Information that used to be “free” is now increasingly being privatized, monitored, encrypted, and restricted. This “intellectual land grab”3 is a direct outcome of new technologies and global markets. Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information.
    [Show full text]
  • DOUGLASS C. NORTH and NON-MARXIST INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINISM Joseph R
    Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 16, no. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 101–137 2002 Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org DOUGLASS C. NORTH AND NON-MARXIST INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINISM Joseph R. Stromberg* Men imprison themselves within structures of their own creation because they are self-mystified. — Edward Palmer Thompson1 Douglass North has written many essays and books over forty or more years in which he has sought to reintegrate economic theory and economic history. His project became more and more ambitious over time, producing interesting insights, questions, and narratives. His early interests and work centered on the economics of location, transpor- tation costs, and interregional economic relations in American history. In mid-career, he seized on transaction costs—modified from time to time by other “variables”—as the main motor of history, economic history, and institutional development. It was North’s approach to combining history and theory that help- ed him bring into being the New Economic History and, later, what North and his school call the New Institutional History. For his efforts, North shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Economics with Robert W. Fogel, a University of Chicago economist who is a major practitioner of Cliometrics, or quantitative economic history. The Nobel Comm- ittee cited North and Fogel “for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.”2 *Historian-in-Residence, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama. 1E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press, 1978), p. 165. 2“Press Release,” The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1993/press.html.
    [Show full text]
  • ADVANCED SEMINAR in INSTITUTIONAL THEORY and GOVERNANCE STUDIES: ELINOR OSTROM and OLIVER WILLIAMSON in COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Paul Dragos Aligica
    ADVANCED SEMINAR IN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND GOVERNANCE STUDIES: ELINOR OSTROM AND OLIVER WILLIAMSON IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Paul Dragos Aligica “The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for 2009 to Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA, for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons and Oliver E. Williamson University of California, Berkeley, USA, for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm. Economic governance: the organization of cooperation. Elinor Ostrom has demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by user associations. Oliver Williamson has developed a theory where business firms serve as structures for conflict resolution. Over the last three decades these seminal contributions have advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention.” The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 12 October 2009 ELINOR OSTROM OLIVER WILLIAMSON SOURCES AND Public Administration Organization Theory DIMENSIONS (DOMAIN) Ostrom, V., and Ostrom, E. (1965), “A Behavioral Williamson, Oliver E., ed. Organization Theory: From Approach to the Study of Intergovernmental Relations.” Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. Oxford The Annals of the American Academy of Political and University Press, 1995. Social Science, vol. 359, pp. 137—146. Williamson, Oliver E. "The evolving science of Ostrom, E. (1972), "Metropolitan Reform: Propositions organization." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Derived from Two Traditions", Social Science Quarterly, Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte vol.53, December, pp. 474-493. Staatswissenschaft (1993): 36-63. Ostrom, V., and Ostrom, E. (1977), "Public Goods and Williamson, Oliver E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of Douglass North to New Institutional Economics Claude Ménard, Mary M
    The Contribution of Douglass North to New Institutional Economics Claude Ménard, Mary M. Shirley To cite this version: Claude Ménard, Mary M. Shirley. The Contribution of Douglass North to New Institutional Economics. Sebastian Galani, Itai Sened. Institutions, Property Rights and Economic Growth: The legacy of Douglass North, Cambridge University Press, pp.11-29, 2014, 9781107041554. 10.1017/CBO9781107300361.003. hal-01315473 HAL Id: hal-01315473 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01315473 Submitted on 13 May 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THE CONTRIBUTION OF DOUGLASS NORTH TO NEW INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Claude Ménard And Mary M. Shirley Chap. 1, pp. 11-29 In: INSTITUTIONS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, and ECONOMIC GROWTH. The Legacy of Douglass Nortrh. S. Galiani and I. Sened (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014 2 The Contribution of Douglass North to New Institutional Economics By Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley 1 Abstract Douglass North, along with Ronald Coase, Elinor Ostrom, and Oliver Williamson, transformed the early intuitions of new institutional economics into powerful conceptual and analytical tools that spawned a robust base of empirical research. NIE arose in response to questions not well explained by standard neoclassical models, such as make or buy? Or, why rich or poor? Today NIE is a success story by many measures: four Nobel laureates in under 20 years, increasing penetration of mainstream journals, and significant impact on major policy debates from anti-trust law to development aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Elinor Ostrom: Her Work and Its Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management
    IUCN COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY Policy Matters ISSUE 19 - APRIL 2014 RememberingHER WORK AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE THElinorEORY AND PRA OstromCTICE OF CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IUCN COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY Policy Matters ISSUE 19 – APRIL 2014 RememberingHER WORK AND ITS ElinorCONTRIBUTIO OstromN TO THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT James P. Robson IainEdited J. Davidson-Hunt by: Alyne Delaney Gabriela Lichtenstein Lapologang Magole Aroha Te Pareake Mead © 2014 International Union for Conservation of Nature Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial uses is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder(s) provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or of the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP). The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN [**or other participating organizations] concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication should be cited as: Robson, James P., Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Alyne Delaney, Gabriela Lichtenstein, Lapologang Magole and Aroha Te Pareake Mead.Policy Matters2014. Remembering Elinor Ostrom: Her Work and Its Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Elinor Ostrom and Professor Oliver E. Williamson
    Professor Elinor Ostrom and Professor Oliver E. Williamson The Division of Resource Economics congratulates the two Nobel Prize Winners, who are experts in Institutional Analysis, for the highest scientific award! This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics goes to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson. They won the Nobel Economics Prize for their work on institutions and governance struc- tures, common property regimes and transaction cost economics, making Elinor Ostrom the first woman to win the award. The work of both Professor Ostrom and Professor Williamson have played a great role during the development of the Division of Resource Economics and in its approaches used in research and teaching. The Division has close connections to their Institutes, the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University and the Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley. Main concepts and theories de- veloped by the new Nobel Prize Winners have been instrumental for the Division of Re- source Economics in developing the research field of “Institutional Resource Economics“ and crafting the Division’s analytical framework named “Institutions of Sustainability“ (IOS). Professor Ostrom and Professor Hagedorn and their teams collaborated in a large project on “Promotion of Institutions for Natural Resource and Environmental Management in Central and Eastern Europe (PINE)“ funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Professor Ostrom has close academic ties with Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. In 2007, she received the Honorary Doctorate of Humboldt-Universität having been nominated by the Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture. In May 2009, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation honored Pro- fessor Ostrom with the Reimar-Lüst Award.
    [Show full text]